Trade Safecoin on Bitshares 2.0, do you want it?

Bitshares 2.0 is the first truly decentralized exchange which can scale to Visa levels and beyond. It might be possible to use Graphene as the backend for MasterXchange or even to port Safecoin to Metaexchange which will be using the Graphene backend.

Why use another centralized exchange?


Disclosure: luckybit and his family own ? amount of Bitshares

Answer: No, I don’t want it because Polo as the sole MAID exchange works fine and has nice liquidity.


I own MAID as well as BTS and others. I don’t think Safecoin is going to exchange well unless it’s on some exchange so eventually it’s either going to be on Bitshares 2.0, Ethereum or something else. Why not?

It seems it would be mutually beneficial for speculators. On the other hand if you want to promote SAFEX go ahead but I don’t see how people can use SAFEX to buy Safecoin with Bitcoin.

Polo is fine but it’s centralized. It can be confiscated.

1 Like
  • You own BTS: okay, thanks for sharing
  • SAFEX: I am not promoting it, just saying it is likely there will be at least one exchange available before launch. If SafeX won’t be able to handle bitcoin, why would some other exchange be able to handle Safecoin?
  • centralized Polo: yes, because decentralized exchanges kind of suck for daytrading.

By all means persuade BitShares to support Safecoin, no one has anything against that!


You don’t seem thrilled about the idea. If the SAFE Network community is against it I will not waste my time pushing for it. Maybe there are other plans?

Otherwise this can be an opening for collaboration. Why compete? Bitshares 2.0 is the best technology for decentralized exchanges and SAFE Network will not be able to out exchange it, but then SAFE Network could be the best technology for decentralized storage, which is useful…

SAFEX I don’t really see it working out so well. It might make sense for people who are already into Safecoin but it’s not going to be for speculators. SAFEX will be for people willing to take the risk of using Safecoin and Safecoin is pretty risky compared to most other technologies.

For people just trying to buy Safecoin or speculate, they’ll probably keep using centralized exchanges or they’ll move to decentralized exchanges. Polo is probably one of the best centralized exchanges, but for decentralized exchanges Bitshares is it.

Centralized exchanges have risks of being hacked, of being shut down. Bitshares will never be shut down or hacked.

1 Like

I am just a resident heckler and don’t represent the community!


I gather that something like bitshares is a parallel network that allows exchanging to happen and sharing of transaction history.

Safe exchange is based on using Safe Network for exchanging digital ‘assets’. So I am structuring to be able to do many things with secured certainty as there are no server owners who can shut down activity. is based on not building a parallel exchange network. It is based on building exchange within parameters of Safe Network.

What you link to is a service that is straight forward to implement. If bitshares was motivated to include a bridge for maidsafecoins and later safecoins that’s great and especially great for bitshares, I think Safe Network will be useful to many people and therefore safecoins as well.


I’ll chime in for what it is worth. I don’t own any BTS, but I do like the idea of cooperation. Like to see more members take a look at Luckybits proposal.


That is just it. It would be particularly cool if people could trade Safecoins against Bitcoins within Bitshares. It would of course require a Safecoin gateway which SAFEX would be in a position to provide but the preferred entity for a gateway should be a regulated entity which SAFEX isn’t.

It depends. If you can set SAFEX up in such a way that there is a very limited chance of it getting hacked during the process then maybe you could become a gateway, but if it’s a regulated entity like Coinbase or Bitstamp it will be much more trusted.


Folks it’s not that anyone is against cooperation, it’s that “pushing” like this is useless.
What does someone who posts “I want SAFE on BTS!” have at stake? Nothing.

If anyone wants to see anything happen:

  • put up a bounty and get anyone else who says he’s serious about his “support” to demonstrate that by making a financial commitment
  • put in some labor if you got da skillz

If you do neither, what good do these posts do?


Bitshares 2.0 doesn’t work like that. Whoever sets up the service, whoever takes the job, can potentially receive referral income directly from the Bitshares network itself (a percentage of the transaction fees of the users you bring in). Bitshares 2.0 operates like a membership based cooperative.

The referral program provides the incentive for people to make things happen. I’m not making things happen, I’m only proposing the people working on SAFEX who could be in a position to make things happen. I’m a facilitator.

Sooner or later someone from the Bitshares community will end up doing it but I would rather someone from the SAFE Network community do it so they can get the referral rewards. It should preferably by the SAFEX guys actually.

1 Like

Don’t be so shy, you’re in the hall of fame! :wink:

A lot of porting will be done for a lot of systems. Think Counterparty, Ethereum etc. I’m fine with Poloniex so far. I would thin it’s okay when someone ports Omni to Bitshares, why not? But I don’t miss it as this moment.

1 Like

Okay, to put it bluntly, it takes money and effort to integrate stuff, that’s what I tried to explain in a roundabout way.
If someone sees the opportunity and is willing to invest either of these two, they would have to take a risk.
If they don’t, no amount of community organizing will make him risk his money and/or time.

In the other topic I already pointed out to you that the premise of decentralized SAFE exchange that lowers risk is false.
We also know that the number of transactions (on Polo) that MAID requires is very low.
So compared to Polo, what important advantages that matter does Bitshares offer?

1 Like

no central point of failure…

1 Like

Take a look @ their whitepaper it’s pretty advanced stuff… I think there’s definitly a need for collaboration @ big scale in crypto-land to make things easier and more attractive to the mass.
There are at least 10 amazing projects (with coins) currently, so without collaboration or bringing them under one system, things won’t get easier in the long run.


Why do you need SAFE Network though if you are satisfied using CENTRALIZED Poloniex that could gox you one day? Use old school internet. It is cool enough. Except that IP addresses, DNS records and service providers are kind of centralized.


SAFE Network could be used to do the same thing.

Perhaps you missed the part in which a “highly regulated trusted entity” such as a Wall St bank stands behind your “decentralized exchange”.

There Will always be a regulated one and another a little less regulated I can imagine…

what is this short little thread, and why tf is it the 3rd most popular thread of all time???

1 Like